DOCSLIB.ORG

Here Is an Incident in the Dartford Crossing/M25 Area

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Here Is an Incident in the Dartford Crossing/M25 Area THAMES CROSSING ACTION GROUP Spring 2020 LOWER THAMES CROSSING SUPPLEMENTARY CONSULTATION RESPONSE www.thamescrossingactiongroup.com [email protected] Thames Crossing Action Group represents thousands of people along and from the surrounding areas that the entire proposed Lower Thames Crossing will impact if it goes ahead. First and foremost we would state that we find it totally unacceptable that this consultation was not postponed until after the COVID-19 pandemic crisis has passed. We do not feel this Supplementary Consultation has been held adequately, and we will go into this in further details later in our response. It is under complete and utter duress that we, Thames Crossing Action Group, and all our thousands of members respond to this consultation at a time when the whole world is immersed in the COVID- 19 pandemic crisis. Some of us are grieving with the loss of loved ones, some of us are fighting for our lives, some of us are very sick, some of us are fighting to try and save those lives, some of us are going out of our minds with worry about loved ones, some of us are doing our utmost to ensure that everyone else have the food and supplies to survive. We are all seriously stressed and concerned, we are all doing our best to follow official advice, we are all doing the right thing and staying at home, we are all doing our best to try and stay safe, take care of and support each other. We at TCAG and all our thousands of members are completely disgusted that at this time Highways England/Lower Thames Crossing are happily putting additional pressure on us at this most difficult and awful times, by continuing to inflict this consultation upon us, rather than postponing until after the COVID019 crisis has passed. It is despicable, unethical and immoral that HE/LTC are doing this. This response to the Supplementary Consultation should be considered in addition to our response to the Statutory Consultation of 2018 and should be read in conjunction with that document – a copy of which can be viewed at www.thamescrossingactiongroup.com/thames-crossing-action- group-response-to-ltc-consultation/. As a group we remain strongly and completely opposed to the proposed Lower Thames Crossing. It would create a hugely destructive toxic triangle that is not fit for purpose. Laura Blake Chair, Thames Crossing Action Group www.thamescrossingactiongroup.com [email protected] THAMES CROSSING ACTION GROUP Spring 2020 LOWER THAMES CROSSING SUPPLEMENTARY CONSULTATION RESPONSE Contents THE PROPOSED LOWER THAMES CROSSING ................................................................................................. 8 ORIGINAL CRITERIA .................................................................................................................................................. 8 WHAT ARE THE ISSUES THAT NEED ADDRESSING AT THE DARTFORD CROSSING? ................................................................... 8 WHAT CAUSES THESE ISSUES? .................................................................................................................................... 8 Hazardous Vehicles ........................................................................................................................................ 8 Height Restrictions ......................................................................................................................................... 9 Signage overload issues ................................................................................................................................. 9 A282 not M25 and speed limits ..................................................................................................................... 9 Busy junction too close to tunnel portals/bridge ........................................................................................... 9 QE2 Bridge wind issues ................................................................................................................................ 10 Poor management of crossing and incident handling ................................................................................. 10 Development being allowed without adequate infrastructure in place....................................................... 10 Will LTC fix the problems we all suffer with due to the Dartford Crossing? ................................................. 12 Additional evidence ................................................................................................................................................... 13 OPTION A14 A BETTER ALTERNATIVE ......................................................................................................................... 13 Option A14 is one of the earlier design options created by Highways England that we feel would be a better alternative solution. .......................................................................................................................... 13 What is Option A14? .................................................................................................................................... 13 No need to escort hazardous vehicles .......................................................................................................... 13 Improve air quality ....................................................................................................................................... 13 Less impact to homes, communities, environment etc ................................................................................ 14 Completes the M25 ...................................................................................................................................... 14 It would take more than 22% of traffic away from the Dartford Crossing .................................................. 14 CHANGES TO THE ROUTE ........................................................................................................................... 16 SOUTH OF THE RIVER IN KENT .................................................................................................................................. 16 Inadequacies of information ..................................................................................................................................... 17 PREVIOUSLY PROPOSED TILBURY JUNCTION ................................................................................................................ 17 Removal of Rest and Service Area ................................................................................................................ 17 Removal of Maintenance Depot .................................................................................................................. 18 Removal of Tilbury junction ......................................................................................................................... 18 Tilbury Loop Railway Viaduct ....................................................................................................................... 19 Safety concerns ......................................................................................................................................................... 19 Lack of adequate information ................................................................................................................................... 20 Tilbury Link Road .......................................................................................................................................... 20 Lack of adequate info ................................................................................................................................... 20 Service Rd access .......................................................................................................................................... 20 A13/A1089 JUNCTION ......................................................................................................................................... 20 LTC to Orsett Cock connection ..................................................................................................................... 20 Impact to Orsett Showground ...................................................................................................................... 21 Rectory Rd bridge ......................................................................................................................................... 21 A13 lane reduction ....................................................................................................................................... 21 Road closure and realignments .................................................................................................................... 21 Distances of the long connecting slip roads ................................................................................................. 21 Heights of the connecting roads .................................................................................................................. 21 Lack of adequate info ................................................................................................................................................ 22 THAMES CROSSING ACTION GROUP Spring 2020 LOWER THAMES CROSSING SUPPLEMENTARY CONSULTATION RESPONSE The Stanford Detour ....................................................................................................................................
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Public-Private Partnerships Financed by the European Investment Bank from 1990 to 2020
    EUROPEAN PPP EXPERTISE CENTRE Public-private partnerships financed by the European Investment Bank from 1990 to 2020 March 2021 Public-private partnerships financed by the European Investment Bank from 1990 to 2020 March 2021 Terms of Use of this Publication The European PPP Expertise Centre (EPEC) is part of the Advisory Services of the European Investment Bank (EIB). It is an initiative that also involves the European Commission, Member States of the EU, Candidate States and certain other States. For more information about EPEC and its membership, please visit www.eib.org/epec. The findings, analyses, interpretations and conclusions contained in this publication do not necessarily reflect the views or policies of the EIB or any other EPEC member. No EPEC member, including the EIB, accepts any responsibility for the accuracy of the information contained in this publication or any liability for any consequences arising from its use. Reliance on the information provided in this publication is therefore at the sole risk of the user. EPEC authorises the users of this publication to access, download, display, reproduce and print its content subject to the following conditions: (i) when using the content of this document, users should attribute the source of the material and (ii) under no circumstances should there be commercial exploitation of this document or its content. Purpose and Methodology This report is part of EPEC’s work on monitoring developments in the public-private partnership (PPP) market. It is intended to provide an overview of the role played by the EIB in financing PPP projects inside and outside of Europe since 1990.
    [Show full text]
  • Identification of Hedonomic Road Landscape in Lithuania
    Aplinkos tyrimai, inžinerija ir vadyba, 2010. Nr. 4(54), P. 72-78 ISSN 2029-2139 Environmental Research, Engineering and Management, 2010. No.4(54), P. 72-78 (On-line) Identification of Hedonomic Road Landscape in Lithuania Irina Matijošaitienė Department of Architecture and Land Management, Kaunas University of Technology (received in November, 2010, accepted in December, 2010) Hedonomics is quite a new branch of science which is closely related to ergonomics – where ergonomic needs, such as safety, functionality, usability, and hedonomic needs such as pleasurable experience and personal perfection just begin. Further analysis of the subject literature, and comparison of the facts about hedonomics allow us perceive hedonomic roadscape as a pleasurable roadscape. Since it is not clear how to identify hedonomic or pleasurable roadscape, the interdisciplinary roadscape evaluation method is proposed in the paper. The method is based on an assumption of a concept of hedonomic road landscape as an aspiration. The proposed method consists of a preparatory field research of roadscape including road landscape research and photo-fixation on the site, a survey method selection, questionnaires formation using Kansei engineering and SD (semantic differential) technique and a main research including sociological research and using cluster and contingency analysis. The author also identifies hedonomic and non- hedonomic landscape of main Lithuanian arterial roads which are labeled as European arterial roads and corridors of the network of European roads except for bypasses. Key words: road landscape (roadscape), hedonomic, cluster analysis, contingency analysis, Kansei engineering method, semantic differential method (SD technique). 1. Introduction A distinctive culture of travelling by car started to look wider at roadscape and its identification, and to develop in the USA at the beginning of the 20th to develop a solution at psychological, economic, century.
    [Show full text]
  • Appendix a to the Council Minutes – 23 October 2019
    Appendix A to the Council Minutes – 23 October 2019 Item 6 – Questions from Members of the Public. There were 6 questions submitted from members of the public. 1. From Mrs Saunders to Councillor Watkins I would like to ask the Council why so many trees are being removed in Thurrock in particular Dell Road, this is near where I live, I’m in Rectory Road, the Orsett Cock roundabout, Rectory Road, Chadwell Road and we noticed some had been taken down near Coalhouse Fort whilst out walking. Thank you. Mayor Councillor Watkins, please respond to the question. Councillor Watkins Thank you very much Mr Mayor, and thank you to yourself as well Mrs Saunders. Trees can be removed for a multitude of different reasons, such as development or issues specifically related to that tree or for particular safety issues as well. I would just like to point out, and I’m not sure how you feel, but I don’t like seeing trees being taken down. They will only ever get taken down if there was ever an actual need to do so. In case you were wondering where, Cabinet in February, thanks to a motion which was passed actually through Council, approved of a Tree Planting Strategy, which would replace trees taken down on public land, tree planting within that was also back-dated as well, so there were sixty six trees being replaced in total. There’s also been additional ones, since the storm for example we’ve had this year, and in which trees which came down within that, those ones will equally be replaced.
    [Show full text]
  • Barking and Dagenham from High Road to Longridge Road
    i.i—^Ufcflikmr R|LONDON^THE LQIVDON BOROUGHS NDTHE DAGENHAM v^-m NEWHAM IB, HAVERING LB 'Ii "^1 « HAVERING DAGENHAM •*'j&* J$! «V^v • REPORT NO. 660 LOCAL GOVERNMENT BOUNDARY COMMISSION FOR ENGLAND REPORT NO 660 LOCAL GOVERNMENT BOUNDARY COMMISSION FOR ENGLAND CHAIRMAN Mr K F J Ennals CB MEMBERS Mr G R Prentice Mrs H R V Sarkany Mr C W Smith Professor K Young -4 ,« CONTENTS Paragraphs Introduction 1-5 Our approach to the review of Greater London 6-10 The initial submissions made to us 11 Our draft and further draft proposals letters and the responses to them 12-18 Barking & Dagenham/Redbridge/Havering boundaries: the salient between Chadwell Heath and Marks Gate 19-20 The salient and Marks Gate 21-37 Chadwell Heath and East Road area 38-44 Crow Lane 45-52 Barking & Dagenham/Redbridge boundary St Chad's Park 53-55 The Becontree Estate 56-72 South Park Drive 73-74 Victoria Road 75-79 Barking & Dagenham/Newham boundary River Roding and the A406 80-93 Electoral Consequentials 94 Conclusion 95 Publication 96-97 THE RT HON MICHAEL HOWARD QC MP SECRETARY OF STATE FOR THE ENVIRONMENT LOCAL GOVERNMENT ACT 1972 REVIEW OF GREATER LONDON, THE LONDON BOROUGHS AND THE CITY OF LONDON THE LONDON BOROUGH OF BARKING & DAGENHAM AND ITS BOUNDARIES WITH THE LODON BOROUGHS OF REDBRIDGE, NEWHAM AND HAVERING (AT MARKS GATE AND CROW LANE ONLY) COMMISSION'S FINAL REPORT INTRODUCTION 1. This is our final report on the boundaries between the London Borough of Barking & Dagenham and its neighbouring local authorities.
    [Show full text]
  • A13 Road Widening (Stanford-Le-Hope Bypass)
    A13 Road Widening (Stanford-le-Hope Bypass) The A13 connects central London with the southeast coast of Essex via Thurrock. Whilst designated a local road, it is a critical arterial route in the east of England, and a vital part of the UK’s national road network. A13 Widening (Stanford-le-Hope Bypass) The road is currently a two-lane dual-carriageway between its junctions with the A128 and A1014. Increasing its capacity will increase its potential to accommodate growth, supporting long-term local investment and national productivity. What is planned? Plans are underway to widen the A13 Stanford-le-Hope Bypass from two to three lanes in both directions, from the junction with the A128 (Orsett Cock roundabout) in the west and the A1014 (The Manorway) to the east. This widened section of road will tie-in with the existing three-lane section of the A13 to the west of the junction with A128. It will also link with work already carried out at the junction with the A1014. Works will begin once £80million of committed government funding is secured. A further £10million will be provided by DP World London Gateway. What will happen? Construction work will involve the demolition and re-building of four bridges across the widened road. The new bridges will be built next to where the current ones stand, allowing traffic to flow normally for as long as possible. The junction at the Orsett Cock roundabout would be rebuilt to tie in with the new bridge locations. Other road widening plans include: • widening the central reservation and verges for better visibility on bends • relocation of noise barriers • new embankments • new safety fencing • new drainage and flood control • new road lighting • public utility diversions • new landscaping There will be no demolition of properties next to the A13.
    [Show full text]
  • London Borough of Newham
    LONDON BOROUGH OF BARKING & DAGENHAM PLANNING COMMITTEE 14 September 2020 Application for S73 Variation to an Outline Planning Permission Case Officer: Nasser Farooq Valid Date: 17/06/2020 London Borough of Barking Applicant: Expiry Date: 16/09/2020 and Dagenham Application Number: 20/01251/VAR Ward: Gascoigne Ward Address: Gascoigne Estate East King Edwards Road, Barking, Barking And Dagenham, The purpose of this report is to set out the Officer recommendations to Planning Committee regarding an application for a Section 73 Variation to an outline planning permission relating to the proposal below at Gascoigne Estate East King Edwards Road, Barking. Proposal: Application for variation of condition 2 (approved parameter plans) in respect of permission 19/00310/FUL. To amend approved parameter plans in relation to Development Parcels I and J. Consented development 19/00310/FUL Hybrid (part full/part outline) application for the phased comprehensive redevelopment of the site for a maximum of 1,575 residential dwellings (Use Class C3); 21,550 sq. m of Education (Use Class D1); 1,355 sq. m Medical facility (Use Class D1); 1,200 sq. m of Employment (Use Class B1); 1,400 sq. m of Community facilities (Use Class D1/D2); 1,850 sq. m of flexible commercial floor space (within Use Classes A1, A2, A3, and B1); 1,000 sq. m to be used as a place of worship (Use Class D1) or employment (Use Class B1); and Energy Centre (all figures given as maximum gross external area); with associated means of access, car parking, landscaping, service infrastructure and other associated works and improvements.
    [Show full text]
  • Property Summary Castle Point – March 2016
    Property Summary Castle Point – March 2016 Web: www.investessex.co.uk INVEST Essex Email: [email protected] Market Road Tel: +44 (0)1245 438628 Chelmsford Twitter: @investessex Essex CM1 1QH Property Reference: 1397 3000.00 SqFt - 3000.00 SqFt 278.71 SqM - 278.71 SqM The property comprises a building of Unit/Suite: 55-56, 1st Floor Island masonry construction, arranged over Business Estate, 55-56 Shannon Square two floors to offer industrial accommodation within various units. The Available property is located on Shannon Square SecondHand and forms part of the Island Business Leasehold: Not Quoting Estate within Canvey Island which is Zack Kay (PALL MALL INVESTMENTS situated on the north bank of the LTD) Thames Estuary approximately six miles south-west of Southend-on-Sea. The 02089867221 town is approached by the A130 which [email protected] connects with the A13 some three miles to the north, which in turn connects with junction 30 of the M25 The property is situated approximately 1.7 miles from Benfleet Railway Station. Negotiable Property Reference: 1406 43 Furtherwick Road (Various Units) Available SecondHand 815.00 SqFt - 815.00 SqFt Leasehold: £22,500.00 75.72 SqM - 75.72 SqM Jem Swami (MCBRYER BEG & CO) The property comprises a terrace 02077028228 with ground floor retail units [email protected] together with rear storage. The Omar Beg (MCBRYER BEG & CO) property is located west of 02077028228 Southend and close to the A13. [email protected] The premises are situated in a prime position on Furtherwick Peter McBryer (MCBRYER BEG & Road. In 30 Days CO) 02077028228 [email protected] Property Reference: 1413 518.00 SqFt - 518.00 SqFt Unit/Suite: 4, 1st Floor 101 - 103 48.12 SqM - 48.12 SqM Furtherwick Road The property comprises an end terrace building offering mixed use Available accommodation over two floors.
    [Show full text]
  • City of London Corporation – Markets Consultation Summary Report
    City of London Corporation – Markets Consultation Summary Report October 2019 City of London Corporation – Markets | Consultation Summary Report 2 1 Context and Objectives 3 Analysis of the responses The City of London Corporation owns and manages London’s Responses to the consultation were collated and analysed three principal wholesale food markets: Smithfield (meat on behalf of the City of London Corporation by TONIC, an and poultry), New Spitalfields (fruit, vegetables and flowers), independent organisation specialising in public consultation and Billingsgate (fish). The City Corporation now has an analysis and social research (further information at: opportunity to bring all three markets together at a site in the www.tonic.org.uk). London Borough of Barking & Dagenham to ensure that they All data was stored securely within the UK in accordance can continue to serve future generations. with all Data Protection Act requirements by TONIC, who are The Markets Programme is one of the largest programmes the registered with the Information Controller’s Office (Reference City of London Corporation has undertaken and will continue ZA273132). to generate wide ranging interest as well as impact upon a Those who responded to this consultation constitute a self- broad spectrum of stakeholders, including market traders, selecting sample, and therefore appropriate caution should be consumers, suppliers, the public, local authorities, City applied when interpreting and utilising the response numbers Members, and Parliamentary representatives. in this report. The objective of this consultation process was to gather and TONIC conducted a Thematic Analysis of the qualitative understand a wide range of views on the proposal to bring questions which is a simple and flexible form of qualitative together the three wholesale markets at Dagenham Dock, as analysis commonly used in social research.
    [Show full text]
  • Stuart Willsher Boyer Planning 15 De Grey Square De Grey Road
    Stuart Willsher Our Ref: APP/V1505/A/13/2204850 Boyer Planning Your Ref: 10.611 15 De Grey Square De Grey Road COLCHESTER CO4 5YQ 17 June 2014 Dear Sir, TOWN AND COUNTRY PLANNING ACT 1990 – SECTION 78 APPEAL BY MERIDIAN STRATEGIC LAND LTD AT LITTLE CHALVEDON HALL, HOMESTEAD ROAD, BOWERS GIFFORD, BASILDON, SS13 2JL APPLICATION REFERENCE: 13/00140/OUT 1. I am directed by the Secretary of State to say that consideration has been given to the report of the Inspector, Katie Peerless Dip Arch RIBA, who held a public local inquiry between 25 and 28 February 2014 into your client's appeal against a decision of Basildon Borough Council (the Council) to refuse planning permission for residential development of 750 homes together with a new neighbourhood centre (to include retail, health centre, primary school and extra care unit), associated new accesses and areas of public open space at Little Chalvedon Hall, Homestead Road, Bowers Gifford, Basildon, SS13 2JL in accordance with application reference 13/00140/OUT, dated 31 January 2013. 2. On 17 September 2013 the appeal was recovered for the Secretary of State's determination, in pursuance of section 79 of, and paragraph 3 to Schedule 6 to, the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 because it involves proposals for residential development over 150 units or is on a site of over 5 hectares and would significantly impact on the Government’s objective to secure a better balance between housing demand and supply and create high quality, sustainable, mixed and inclusive communities. Inspector’s recommendation and summary of the decision 3.
    [Show full text]
  • London Plan Implementation Report Safeguarded Wharves on the River Thames Mayor of London 1
    London Plan Implementation Report Safeguarded Wharves on the River Thames London Plan Implementation Report January 2005 Cover photo stories: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 1 JJ Prior delivering aggregates to RMC Fulham (Comley’s Wharf). The aggregates, sand and gravel, originate from Prior’s quarry at Fingringhoe on the River Colne near Colchester. Prior owns seven aggregate vessels ranging in size from 250 to 600 tonne cargo carrying capacity. The vessels load directly from the quarry and delivery direct to upriver aggregates facilities, carrying approximately 160,000 tonnes per year. These small ships make a huge contribution to keeping heavy lorries off London’s streets. In recognition of this, the company has received several Freight Facilities Grants towards the cost of vessel refurbishment. 2 A panorama of two safeguarded Wandsworth terminals: Cringle Dock, a waste transfer station owned by the Western Riverside Waste Authority and operated by Cory Environmental; and RMC Battersea, owned and operated as a concrete batching plant by RMC. These two berths primarily handle cargo that has been transhipped within the Port of London, sea-dredged aggregates and cement arriving at RMC Battersea from terminals in Greenwich, Northfleet and Greenhithe and household waste barged from Cringle Dock to Mucking in Essex. In 2001, over 375,000 tonnes of cargo was handled at these two terminals, which kept over 51,000 lorry movements of the capital’s streets. 3 A Cory Environmental owned tug pulling a pair of dumb barges upstream through Lambeth Bridge carrying empty containers for loading with household waste at two safeguarded water transfer stations in Wandsworth (Western Riverside Waste Transfer Station and Cringle Dock).
    [Show full text]
  • 60 Years of Defining Moments: a History of Murphy
    60 Years of Defining Moments: A History of Murphy Breathing life into infrastructure CivilEngineering Building Process Energy Pipelines Tunnelling Rail Water&Wastewater UtilityConnections Piling Nuclear2 of 91 Geotechnical Highways&Streetworks CivilEngineering Building Process Energy Pipelines Tunnelling Rail Water&Wastewater UtilityConnections Piling Nuclear Geotechnical Highways&Streetworks CivilEngineering Building Process Energy Pipelines Tunnelling Rail Water&Wastewater UtilityConnections Piling Nuclear Geotechnical Highways&Streetworks CivilEngineering Building Process Energy Pipelines Tunnelling Rail Water&Wastewater Utility Connections Piling Nuclear Geotechnical Highways&Streetworks CivilEngineering Building Process Energy Pipelines Tunnelling Rail Water& Wastewater UtilityConnections Piling Nuclear Geotechnical Highways&Streetworks CivilEngineering Building Process Energy Pipelines Tunnelling Rail Water&Wastewater UtilityConnections Piling Nuclear Geotechnical Highways&Streetworks CivilEngineering Building Process Energy Pipelines Tunnelling Rail Water&Wastewater UtilityConnections Piling Nuclear Geotechnical Highways&Streetworks CivilEngineering Building Process Energy Pipelines Tunnelling Rail Water&Wastewater UtilityConnections Piling Nuclear Geotechnical Highways&Streetworks CivilEngineering Building Process Energy Pipelines Tunnelling Rail Water&Wastewater UtilityConnections Piling Nuclear Geotechnical Highways&Streetworks Civil Engineering Building Process Energy Pipelines Tunnelling Rail Water&Wastewater UtilityConnections
    [Show full text]
  • Committee Report Template
    Committee(s): Date(s): Markets Committee – For Information 25/09/2019 Subject: Public City’s Wholesale Markets – Consolidation Programme Update Report of: For Information City Surveyor and Director of Major Projects, Town Clerks Report author: Anna Dunne – City Surveyor’s Department Summary This report summarises the work that has been undertaken by the Markets Consolidation Programme since the last update report on the 5th July 2019. This includes a summary of work with tenants over the summer period and the results of the initial Public Consultation of the City’s preferred location which closed on the 6th August 2019. It also includes an update on ongoing research, including the results of a food roundtable held at the end of July and ongoing work on transportation. Recommendation(s) It is recommended that the Markets Committee notes: The progress of the Markets Consolidation Programme in developing requirements, particularly the growing interaction with tenants, customers and suppliers at all three markets; The initial feedback from the public consultation and the ongoing engagement with tenants; The establishment of the new Member Oversight Groups. Main Report Tenant consultation 1. A key area of concern for the programme has been obtaining tenant engagement. Experience of the programme to date suggests the most effective method of communication is by direct engagement with tenants on the markets. The appointment of the new Markets Coordinator (June 2019) has created a daily presence on the markets and allowed for more regular interaction between the programme and the tenants, both collectively and on a one to one basis. The Markets Coordinators’ role includes answering questions and gathering informal information on the tenants’ business operations.
    [Show full text]